These days, the biased leftist slant of the media is more apparent than it has ever been. They are spinning madly, increasingly frantic with fear of those super scary Tea Partiers and oh-so-terrifying conservatives. And when you add Sarah Palin and race-based identity politics into the mix, it becomes a perfect storm of unabashed — and unbalanced — leftist water carrying.

The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen is the latest to exhibit just how unglued the Left and the media, being concentric circles on a Venn diagram, natch, have become. Newsbusters points out that in the article titled “Attack on Michelle Obama shows Palin’s ignorance of history,” Cohen comes to the inane, and typically leftist, conclusion that Sarah Palin “could not be the president of black America nor of Hispanic America.” Um. Sure, I’m no swanky-pants Washington Post columnist, nor do I even have the vast experience of a community organizer from which to draw, but I’m fairly certain that the presidency isn’t segregated.

Can’t let pesky facts stand in the way of a hit piece, though, can he? How does Cohen form his brilliant – and sure-fire entre into a good cocktail party this weekend – hypothesis? Because Sarah Palin dares to mention the following in her new book:

In her new book, she reportedly takes Michelle Obama to task for her supposedly infamous remark from the 2008 campaign: “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” […]

Huh. Again, I’m no expert, but it seems to me that Michelle Obama actually did say that. So, by “taking her to task,” he of course means smearing with, you know, the truth. Oh, that wing-nutty Palin! Telling the truth and all. That’s so reactionary and old school! I suppose they don’t like that whole “Truth to Power” thing turned around on them. The book snippet to which he refers is as follows:

Certainly his wife expressed this view when she said during the 2008 campaign that she had never felt proud of her country until her husband started winning elections. In retrospect, I guess this shouldn’t surprise us, since both of them spent almost two decades in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church listening to his rants against America and white people.

Cohen isn’t alone in his delusions. The Huffington Postcalled that passage “racially charged.” Why? Because the Left, in their stompy foot temper tantrums, are letting their true colors show. And they are racist ones. It is the Left who only sees color. It is the Left who paints people into identity politics laden boxes only, in order to further their own end. They use people as a means to that end, with no regard to the harm it causes. This is evidenced further by Cohen, who after predictably bringing up slavery, went on to grossly say this:

Sarah Palin teases that she might run for president. But she is unqualified – not just in the (let me count the) usual ways, but because she does not know the country. She could not be the president of black America nor of Hispanic America. She knows more about grizzlies than she does about African Americans – and she clearly has more interest in the former than the latter. Did she once just pick up the phone and ask Michelle Obama what she meant by her remark? Did she ask about her background? What it was like at Princeton? What it was like for her parents or her grandparents? I can offer a hint. If they were driving to Washington, they slowed down and stopped where the sign said “colored” – and the irritated Palins of the time angrily hit the horn and went on their way.

Not only vile, but wrong. It is the Left who are still enslaving. They require people, particularly women and minorities, to walk and think in lockstep. It is people like Barbara Boxer, not Sarah Palin, who have no interest in African-Americans and what they think. Barbara Boxer doesn’t even realize that people have minds of their own. In a new version of the odious “y’all look alike’ bigotry, Barbara Boxer holds the disgusting belief that all people in the Left’s little boxed up identity groups must all think the same way. All “you people” think the same, you see. It was Harry Reid, not Sarah Palin, who condescending sneered “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.”

The Smarter Than Us ™ Left, including their media lackeys, doesn’t believe in Post-Racial anything. In fact, quite the opposite: Their bread and butter is identity politics. In order to maintain power, they absolutely must put everyone in victim boxes and attempt to pit people against one and another. This worked to great effect in the past, with the media’s complicity. It’s far past time we put an end to it. While I expect the vitriol and animus spewed at Sarah Palin to get even worse, unbelievable as that is, the media’s cover has been blown. The media has been, and will continue to be, exposed due in part to the hateful and delusional rantings of the likes of Richard Cohen.

To be fair, Richard Cohen, you are right in one regard. Sarah Palin couldn’t be president of black America. Because that isn’t, you know, a country. Contrary to your desires, and to John Edwards’ ridiculous Two Americas spiel, we are one nation. You, sir, are the one who is ignorant of history. First grade history, no less.

We don’t have segregated presidencies. Nor should we. The very idea is racist in and of itself. What we do have are presidents of the United States of America.

Cohen is an ass. I remember an article I read years ago that basically stated that stay-at-home moms were inferior to working moms. It was insulting and ignorant beyond belief. I’ve never bothered to read anything by him since. And if anyone asks, I let them know, very explicitly, why they should ignore any opinion he has to offer.

“Certainly his wife expressed this view when she said during the 2008 campaign that she had never felt proud of her country until her husband started winning elections.”

Michelle Obama did not say that.

The real quote from Michelle Obama:

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

The actual quote does not imply that Michelle had “never felt proud of her country” in her past, as the Palin passage suggests.

It also does not mention anything about “her husband started winning elections.” Obama was still a candidate when Michelle said those words, and he was in fact “doing well” in his candidacy, but her pride was “not just because Barack has done well,” but because she thought that “people are hungry for change.” That would be a reference to the grassroots movement that had swelled to support her husband. She clarified that fact after the quote was misinterpreted by the right.

Palin mentions none of this. Paraphrasing is the act of putting a passage from source material into your own words. This is what Palin has done with her deliberately misleading language. Unless a quotation matches the source word for word, then all Palin is doing is providing us with her opinion as to what she thinks that Michelle meant by her words.

This has nothing to do with speaking “Truth to Power” as Lori suggests. It has everything to do with lazy writing and the opinion of the author, which is obviously not the truth behind the quote.

‘Unless a quotation matches the source word for word, then all Palin is doing is providing us with her opinion as to what she thinks that Michelle meant by her words.’

HUH?…that IS what Palin is offering — her opinion based on what Michelle Obama said in regard to her husband. And in fact, Molten, isn’t that exactly what you are doing? Offering your opinion based on the passage in Palin’s book? You know Palin’s exact thoughts regarding the passage and what she meant by her words? Amazing.

And as for this being an ‘attack’ on Michelle Obama, I beg to differ. Her words can be spun in a myriad of negative or, as you choose, positive ways. I found them to be the former — words carefully crafted to evoke a (past) negative image of America…tugging on the electorate’s heart-strings to vote for poor Barack.

I know one thing for sure, and that’s that Palin did not use the correct quote. She made up her own quote.

In contrast, I did use the exact word for word quote from Palin’s book. I wasn’t paraphrasing, so I did at least take the Palin quote in the correct context.

But I’m glad that you agree with me that it was only Sarah’s “opinion.” Thank you.

Because I was taking issue with this particular paragraph from Lori, which I will now correct for her:

“Huh. Again, I’m no expert, but it seems to me that Michelle Obama actually did say that. So, by “taking her to task,” he of course means smearing with, you know, SARAH’S OWN OPINION. Oh, that wing-nutty Palin! Telling HER OPINION and all. That’s so reactionary and old school! I suppose they don’t like that whole “OPINION to Power” thing turned around on them.

You see, “opinion” doesn’t automatically equal “truth” simply because it comes from the mind of Sarah Palin.

Now, you can take the Michelle quote any way that you want to. You’re entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. But it seems that it might be a reasonable thing to also take her clarification of her comments made two days later into account when forming your opinion.

Here is that clarification for those who have chosen to ignore it until now.

So now trying to unsay a despicable thing she said is Michelle’s “clarification”? She said what she said. “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country….” I don’t care why she said such a terrible thing, but she did, & no amount of spin will ever make it a nice thing.

“liberals” (in poll after poll) only account for ONLY 20% of the country… America is in the crapper right now because the silent majority was too sleepy to pay attention to politicians and their backgrounds.

TheWon and Meechelle are America haters by their words, policy promotions and actions…

“molten” and trolls will continue to bash away nonsensically at Sarah with personal attacks, but her popularity keeps rising…

she is an oustanding American with a great record fighting corruption – even in her own party. she is happily not “in” the elitist club…

exactly the type of potus the USA needs…

p.s. keep an eye out next Monday for SCOTUS comments on the Apuzzo case… best case? TheWon has to leave office… (yep I can HOPE… see? hope IS ALIVE!….)

So now trying to unsay a despicable thing she said is Palin’s “clarification”? She said what she said. “But obviously, we’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies. ” I don’t care why she said such a terrible thing, but she did, & no amount of spin will ever make it a nice thing.

Awww, Budd…you’re such a sensitive and patriotic guy. If you think that what Michelle Obama said was so “despicable,” you’d probably feel the same way about someone who has desicrated the American flag, right?

October 20, 2010. In a video (at 1:30), Sarah Palin is seen signing a flag for a supporter.

“The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”

Sarah cannot undo the despicable and unpatriotic thing that she did to the American flag. She did what she did, she disrespected the American flag. I don’t care why she did such a terrible thing, but she did, and no amount of spin will ever make it a nice thing.

You can’t be serious…you mean to tell me that you put any weight to her (‘corrected’) statement made 1.) during a campaign and 2.) after her handlers have had the chance to give her a properly crafted mea culpa — after focus had been applied to the initial statement? Please tell me you are not so naive.

Right, Billygoat…Michelle Obama is the first figure ever on the American political landscape that has had to clarify a poorly worded phrase. Uh huh.

Did you see that just yesterday Sarah Palin chose sides in the conflict between North and South Korea, and picked Kim Jong Il?

Sarah on the Glenn Beck radio show:

“This speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policy. But obviously we’ve gotta stand with our North Korean allies.”

Wow, she actually said that? She considers North Korea to be our ally? What a traitor!

So, let me get this straight, according to you, if she comes out now and says that she meant to say South Korea instead of North Korea, we shouldn’t put any weight to her (‘corrected’) statement because her handlers have had the chance to give her a properly crafted mea culpa — after focus had been applied to the initial statement?

Your theory does apply equally to all political personalities regardless of their affiliation, right?

All sarcasm aside, the fact is, I could understand the intent of the Michelle quote even without reading her clarification. At the time, I felt that the whole controversy surrounding her comment was moronic and petty. I still do. Michelle didn’t mean to berate America any more than Sarah did when she desecrated the American flag by scribbling on it. I think that it’s far too easy for people on both sides to imply that someone “hates America” for whatever reason.

To answer your initial question, I do think that it’s ok for public figures to explain their public statements after the fact. Public figures do this all the time, and I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt especially if their love of country is being questioned by the opposition.

Call me naive, but I think that most all of us love our country, left and right, even as we disagree on the direction it should take.

Molten — to cover your first (off-topic/comment) statement…yes, Sarah Palin said North Korea…Barack Obama has claimed:

*there are 57 states
*that 10,000 were killed by a tornado in Kansas
*that Iran does not pose a serious threat to the US
*Caterpillar lay-offs (they won’t due to the coming passage) re: stimulus policy and did (2,500!)
Is there a reason for me to continue with this (pointless) list further? Minor gaffes vs. larger missteps. Please stay on point — however, after perusing your posts in other links, I see that you seem to wander off-topic frequently. We’re discussing Michelle Obama’s statement and clarification of same.

Now back to my ORIGINAL point — here are the two statements (her first ‘poorly worded phrase'; your description and her ‘clarification’).

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

“What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process,” she said. “For the first time in my lifetime, I’m seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven’t seen and really trying to figure this out — and that’s the source of pride that I was talking about,” she added.

Her initial statement (as I stated before and you ignored) used words carefully crafted to evoke a (past) negative image of America…tugging on the electorate’s heart-strings to vote for poor Barack. Her second statement brought in the words ‘political process’…clearly not used initially because that was (seemingly) not the intent of her statement; if had been she would have used those words initially. Further, I never said that she ‘hated America’ based on her words — your conjecture again? And unlike you I could not, ‘”…understand the intent of the Michelle quote even without reading her clarification.” Palin / desecrate flag vs. Michelle Obama’s statement and clarification?…grapes / oranges…again, you can’t be serious.

As to your final paragraph — “Call me naive, but I think that most all of us love our country, left and right, even as we disagree on the direction it should take.” Yes, you are naive…because clearly the direction in which our country is heading is removing us step-by-step further from our founders original ideals.

“Please stay on point — however, after perusing your posts in other links, I see that you seem to wander off-topic frequently. We’re discussing Michelle Obama’s statement and clarification of same.”

Actually, if you re-read my first post, you’ll see that the topic I was addressing initially was Sarah Palin taking liberty with the Michelle Obama quote, and twisting the context altogther. In addition, I was pointing out that Lori took the Sarah Palin passage as the gospel truth, when it was obviously only an opinion.

If you re-read my second posting, you’ll see that I’m still “on point,” criticizing Lori’s assumption that whatever Sarah says must be the truth, and pointing out (as Lori failed to do) that Michelle had issued an explanation of her words.

It was in your second posting that you focused solely on the Michelle statement, and took us “off point.”

Then you say:

“Her initial statement (as I stated before and you ignored) used words carefully crafted to evoke a (past) negative image of America…tugging on the electorate’s heart-strings to vote for poor Barack.”

I disagree. This was not a “carefully crafted” statement, and I don’t see how evoking a negative image of America (past or present) would tug on anyone’s heartstrings.

A carefully crafted statement would have gone something more like this:

For the first time in my adult lifetime, I think people are hungry for change. This makes me really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well.

Then you say:

“Her second statement brought in the words ‘political process’…clearly not used initially because that was (seemingly) not the intent of her statement”

Again, I disagree. “engaging in the political process” = “unified around some basic common issues”

Maybe if you have more context, you’ll be able to see that she was talking about people “engaging in the political process.”

Here’s the expanded quote for you:

“What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something — for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I’ve seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it’s made me proud.”

This expanded quote should also clarify the source of her pride. It was the American people.

You also seem to have missed the part of her clarifying statement where the interviewer asks her if she had always been proud of her country, she replied “absolutely” and said she and her husband would not be where they are now if not for the opportunities of America.

Then you say:

“Further, I never said that she ‘hated America’ based on her words — your conjecture again?”

No. What I said was “I think that it’s far too easy for people on both sides to imply that someone “hates America” for whatever reason.”

Try to stay on point, Billygoat. This is not about you.

The “conjecture” at the time came from the right-wing blogs, pundits, and Fox News who were insisting that this was proof that Michelle had a disdain for this country, and as a result, was no patriot.

I’m dead serious. Both of those incidents are ridiculous and trivial reasons for attacking either of those woman. If you noticed, I made a point to clarify that I was being sarcastic about Palin signing a flag, even though it was a breach of the United States Flag Code.

And finally you say:

Yes, you are naive…because clearly the direction in which our country is heading is removing us step-by-step further from our founders original ideals.

Now you need to clarify your statement. Are you implying that because I agree with much that the Obama administration has done, that I do not love my country? Because that, my friend, would be a textbook display of “conjecture.”

Enjoy your Thanksgiving feast. Believe it or not, you still have much to be thankful for.

Molten — You twist, turn and roll…obfuscation seems to be your friend. Anything to get your desired result…and frankly, trying to follow your logic is…mind-bending would seem about right. But to your last paragraph:

Now you need to clarify your statement. Are you implying that because I agree with much that the Obama administration has done, that I do not love my country? Because that, my friend, would be a textbook display of “conjecture.”

If you truly agree with the actions of this administration, you could not and do not love this country…at least not based upon the documents of which it was founded. Further, I would certainly not consider you “my friend”…we’re polar opposites. But you are right about one thing — I do have much to be thankful for; most of all that ‘the silent majority’ has been awakened.

“I think that it’s far too easy for people on both sides to imply that someone “hates America” for whatever reason.”

And you take that to mean that I’m accusing you of personally calling Michelle Obama an “America hater,” then it seems quite obvious that you not only have trouble with logic, but you have some comprehension issues also.

Believe me, I understand why you can’t argue my last post point by point. You’re completely out of ammunition.

Thanks for the chat.

Oh, and good luck with that “silent majority” thing. Mark my words, the Republicans and Tea Partiers will let you down, the economy will improve, moderates will once again move left, and your so-called “silent majority” will recoil into a steaming pile of disgust and apathy.

I read all of molten’s ridiculous garbage and it has cemented my conviction to vote Republican until the day I die. I will never, ever vote for a thieving communist, and that’s exactly what the Democrat (yes, DemocRAT) party is – a pack of thieving communists. I don’t care how many slips-of-the-tongue Palin makes, I don’t care how many flags she “descrates” with her autograph, I don’t care what she does or what she says or which useless brain dead worthless ignoramus with an ass wider than Texas she criticizes – absolutely nothing in this world will ever make me vote DemocRAT. So go ahead and continue to talk crap about Palin or anyone else. You feeble-minded morons are just wasting your time because not even God Himself could compel me to vote DemocRAT.

Molten — Your implications toward anyone who disagrees with your spinning is transparent; believe me, I’ve no problem with logic or comprehension. But please enlighten us all — what is it that(…”because I agree with much that the Obama administration has done,…”) the Obama administration has done which makes you proud to support its existence?

The compassion of the left is a right-wing stereotype, you should know that by now.

That comment of mine that you quote was my summary of Lori’s post from 10/30. It didn’t reflect my feelings towards women, it reflected my feelings about Lori’s writing.

Get it now?

Lori likes to write about how all liberal women are “victims,” and how they’re forced to walk in lock step with the party, or the evil feminists. That’s baloney, of course, but her hypocrisy becomes evident when she writes lengthy rants about how conservative women are sooo abused by the media, and anyone who criticizes them are misogynistic scumbags. She deplores her supposed “culture of victimhood” on the left, and then sets up a scenario where conservative woman are portrayed by her as victims. My favorite is when she whines about the “pornification of conservative women,” I thinks that’s hilarious.

Don’t hold your breath for a policy debate with me. The way you wussed out at the end of that last discussion makes me believe that you’ll once again fail to cross the finish line, and start complaining that I’m “bending your mind” again, or some other cop-out along those lines.

Oh yeah, I got it — your infamous sarcasm. As for the compassionate left (tolerant too, I might add) — I didn’t realize that was a right-wing stereotype; the left is constantly telling us they are tolerant and compassionate while the right is not.

As for the media’s portrayal of conservative women, I find Lori to be accurate — further, I do find that victim-hood groups are indeed embraced and encouraged by the left. In fact, women’s rights groups are notoriously silent when a conservative female is attacked in the press — yet are outraged when the tables are turned. There is clearly a double-standard within the media.

Still working on all the reasons why the Obama administration excites you so? And don’t worry, I wont hold my breath waiting for your diatribe.

“the left is constantly telling us they are tolerant and compassionate while the right is not.”

There it is. The stereotype. A prime example of a conservative putting words into the mouth of the left.

Who exactly is this “left” you speak of, Billygoat? Can you link us to some YouTube videos, or give me a few names of actual people on the left who are “constantly” telling you that they’re “tolerant and compassionate”?

I can’t think of a single person on the left who has labeled themselves a “tolerant liberal” or a “compassionate Democrat.”

Can you?

On the other hand, George W. Bush used the phrase “compassionate conservative” to describe himself in dozens of speeches and tv ads during the 2000 campaign. In a 1997 appearance on The Today Show, Bush told host Matt Lauer, “If you wanted to label me, you call me a compassionate conservative.” If you Google “compassionate conservatism” you find that this particular strain of conservatism has a history dating back to 1977, and many Republican politicians have taken the label as their own. Compassionate Conservatism has it’s own Facebook Community Page. Entire books have been written on the subject.

And yet Billygoat tries to tell us..

“the left is constantly telling us they are tolerant and compassionate while the right is not.”

Well, Billy, can I call you Billy? I just showed you that “the right” has in fact been “telling us” that they’re “compassionate” pretty “constantly” since 1977. Now you need to document that same type of behavior on “the left,” or your veracity will be in question.

I wont hold my breath either.

One last thing. I noticed that you asked me the question:

“Still working on all the reasons why the Obama administration excites you so?”

To which I answer: Do you read English? Didn’t I tell you not to hold your breath for a policy debate with me? Didn’t I also say that “I wont start something that you can’t finish” ??

What part of those two phrases didn’t you comprehend, Billy? Tell you what, if Lori ever does a post about policy, I’ll comment on it, and then you can engage me in a debate about it. Until then, I’ll give you a simple, one word answer that I hope you’ll be able to wrap your mind around.

“Still working on all the reasons why the Obama administration excites you so?”

What part of those two phrases didn’t you comprehend, Billy? Tell you what, if Lori ever does a post about policy, I’ll comment on it, and then you can engage me in a debate about it. Until then, I’ll give you a simple, one word answer that I hope you’ll be able to wrap your mind around.

I just showed you that “the right” has in fact been “telling us” that they’re “compassionate” pretty “constantly” since 1977. Now you need to document that same type of behavior on “the left,” or your veracity will be in question.

Nice to know your calendar begins in 1977.

Care to go back to 1964 and the compassion of LBJ with his legacy of The Great Society? The tolerance and compassion of the left is constantly being displayed by their policies and actions — is that lost on you; or do you just have a problem with comprehension of what these programs have done to American society?

I spent enough time in King County WA, but was lucky enough to escape. Any credibility Molten’s argument may have had with me was blown away when I saw a Seattle Times article quoted as source material for his argument. I read that rag daily for years, and rarely saw the unvarnished truth printed in it. No wonder they went bankrupt. I’ve also had the displeasure to arguing issues with zombies spouting the Blethen view of the world – don’t waste your time trying to do so.

I can’t get past Milton’s stupid pucker pose to read or care what he has written. From what I’ve read of the other comments though, I’m guessing he’s just a troll who get’s off on arguing with people. Harmless fun.

Anyway, after decades of being a Democrat, I’m so glad I changed my party last year. They’re just embarrassing now.

You Know You Want To RSS Me!

Vote and stuff

Subscribe to Me! You know, via email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 267 other followers

Snark. And Boobs!

Exposing Asshattery in Washington, DC (and elsewhere if it makes me froth at the mouth), from a dame’s point of view. Hence, the snark and boobs. Probably should have said nag and boobs, but snark has a better ring to it. Contact info: Snarkandboobs@gmail.com

Stimulate Me!

Minds out of the gutter! Not THAT way. The Stimulus Package way. Oh .. that sounds just as bad. Oh, well.